JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Status
We're going back and forth on this, but I think we're in agreement that the law that stands lets the platforms do pretty much anything. But using a code of conduct as a basis for the good faith requirement wouldn't fix the essential problem: they would need either a perfect algorithm to find posts violating the code, or manually moderate every single post.
Not at all. They would simply have to ensure that every post they pull is treated fairly based on their code of conduct. They could miss some - no need to stipulate that they catch everything, or even anything, but much like copyright infringement, once reported every violator would have to be dealt with the same as those which had previously been removed or banned. This is already done for content that actually violates the law. They don't HAVE to find it but they do have to deal with it once reported.

A reasonable and speedy appeals process, also completely transparent, could be used to provide a workable means to salve over once off "mistakes".
 
Starting with the assumption that your own facts may be wrong is a good place to start.

No matter which "side" you are on this really is the only way to arrive at the truth of an issue in dispute. Confirmation bias is one heckuva' drug.

What I always try to do (and tell others to do) is to first look for information and sources that attempt to disprove your stance on an issue as opposed to only seeking out sources that confirm what you already believe to be true. This practice has the added benefit of helping to keep you out of an echo-chamber, since you will be exposing yourself to contrary opinions.
 
...
Most places that are not social media moderate their content as a matter of course; post a review on Amazon. It is not visible until a mod reviews and approves it. That's editorial control and should be treated as such. Post a similar review on Twitface. It goes live immediately. As long as it doesn't violate any woke staffer's sense of justice, it will stay up.

This is beyond social media sites -- if it was merely about social media sites and their unique Terms of Service or user agreements that would be one thing, but when colluding monopolists can nuke any site, we've gone way past a TOS issue. Remember, the sole difference between a monopoly and a communist command economy, is nothing except for the titles of those who control and direct the market.

Whether social media of any type is valuable or not is beside the point. When you make a phone call, the value of that call is not in any way related to your right to make and use the infrastructure. And it is worth noting that the infrastructure would have been impossibly expensive without public funding and special access to land. The agreement we've made is that private companies can make a profit but by using public resources, and in exchange, they give up the right to censor the phone system. Well what should happen when a private company renegs on its half a bargain? I say they should be totally excluded from the public resources. Let them build their own wholly private system if that is what they want to do, paying for every inch of right of way. If they don't want to do that, then they have to live with the fact that stuff they don't approve of is going to run on their wires. That's the deal, if they break their half but hold us to ours, that's fraud. Like buying a car from a dealer, then dealer says "thanks for the money bro, no you can't have the car you bought. Suck it."
 
When you make a phone call, the value of that call is not in any way related to your right to make and use the infrastructure. And it is worth noting that the infrastructure would have been impossibly expensive without public funding and special access to land.
Yes, this is the network.

The network is not the same as the systems attached to it. Just because I can hang a fax machine on my landline doesn't mean I also have the right to use someone else's fax machine. The lines and switches are the network, the hosting is someone else's servers.

The DNS system is arguably part of the plumbing, the machine that the DNS points to is not.

Again, if Twitter had to ban/censor all the leftist bad actors based on the same rules as they enforce on the right, Kamala Harris would already be banned. "They" can't be having that, so the other option would/should be to lighten up evenly across the board.
 
A fact is a fact, they are not negotiable. Personal beliefs are on the other hand quite variable. There is a difference but I think you are never going to be correct on this topic, so I can live with that.
A "fact" is a grammatical construct, it does not have to be true. If someone believes the moon is made of cheese, that is one of the "facts" that shapes their worldview, even if it is incorrect. This is different from "factual," which is where I think you're coming from.
 
A "fact" is a grammatical construct, it does not have to be true. If someone believes the moon is made of cheese, that is one of the "facts" that shapes their worldview, even if it is incorrect. This is different from "factual," which is where I think you're coming from.
To be fair, I've used "fact" in multiple ways in this thread... One of the insufficiencies of the English language.
 
This is different from "factual," which is where I think you're coming from.
Maybe. I was more going with the dictionary definition:

fact
  1. something that actually exists; reality; truth:
  2. something known to exist or to have happened:

But as long as we're on the same page it works. Challenging what one believes to be true is useful.

Also off topic.
 
Preaching to the choir. Note that they didn't ban "arms with just these attachments" they went after the attachment, hence my question.

Yeah, I can read. It also doesn't say anything about attachments or accessories.

Andy had a better reply.

Based on this, then we should only be carrying flintlock rifles and pistols, because back then that's what the Constitution writers were talking about. That's often been the basis for antigun groups to attack our gun rights today. They say we don't "need to own" semiautos, or high capacity rifles and pistols. They feel that the Constitution only allows us to have basic hunting rifles, and anything else should only be in the possession of law enforcement or military. When in fact the founding fathers wanted us to have exactly the same access to the same firearms a military would have, so the people were well armed, and prepared to defend our freedoms just as those in the Revolution did. Equally armed, not just armed for hunting purposes.
So banning certain magazines, or types of weapons, goes totally against the Constitution's statement of "shall not be infringed upon".
 
Based on this, then we should only be carrying flintlock rifles and pistols, because back then that's what the Constitution writers were talking about. That's often been the basis for antigun groups to attack our gun rights today. They say we don't "need to own" semiautos, or high capacity rifles and pistols. They feel that the Constitution only allows us to have basic hunting rifles, and anything else should only be in the possession of law enforcement or military. When in fact the founding fathers wanted us to have exactly the same access to the same firearms a military would have, so the people were well armed, and prepared to defend our freedoms just as those in the Revolution did. Equally armed, not just armed for hunting purposes.
So banning certain magazines, or types of weapons, goes totally against the Constitution's statement of "shall not be infringed upon".

Based on what "this"?????????

Have you lost your mind?

You're having a one-person argument, since there is no opposing view. I'm someone that thinks the same as you do regarding the 2A. . But for some reason my original question about how accessories are viewed by the Constitution triggered you into rants!!!

Buh-bye....
 
Last Edited:
In Just checking around I saw where guns.com was hacked and service interrupted

That reminds me; does anyone else remember the original Guns.com of circa 1997—1999? The domain name, I believe, has changed hands a number of times over the years, but in the mid-to-late 1990s there was a Java-based forum on that site. It was ages ago I stopped visiting there, but seeing the URL brought me back.
 
I wonder if the people who are saying sites like Parler should "just build their own" would have told Rosa Parks to just build her own bus company?
 
I wonder if the people who are saying sites like Parler should "just build their own" would have told Rosa Parks to just build her own bus company?

Yet, I think in the long run that is the answer for something that aims to serve a large amount of people. I think the lawsuit they filed is a good thing, but if they don't win they may not survive.... so the lesson is to build something that they can't boot you out of w/o a change in the laws or even the Constitution. Don't let one's future lie in somebody else's hands is not a bad prescription.
 
...
The network is not the same as the systems attached to it. Just because I can hang a fax machine on my landline doesn't mean I also have the right to use someone else's fax machine.
...

That analogy fails to include those situations where there is only one fax machine, the public is invited to use it, except for you and you and you ....

...
The DNS system is arguably part of the plumbing, the machine that the DNS points to is not.
...

And the reason Parler is again listed is because there just happens to be one last DNS provider in America which hasn't had its power and water and network connections revoked. This is not a stable situation. This is not a free market -- free market fundamentalism only works in an actually free market. Monopolisim and collusion make the market unfree, and trying to apply free market logic to such a system is an exercise in failing to understand the real world -- one that is at total war with dissenting opinion.

...
Again, if Twitter had to ban/censor all the leftist bad actors based on the same rules as they enforce on the right, Kamala Harris would already be banned. "They" can't be having that, so the other option would/should be to lighten up evenly across the board.
...

Never going to happen in the age of Repressive tolerance -- by design they will punish the right for doing what they praise the left for. This is not going to get better by wishing for monopolists to engage in ethical behavior or by chalking up their failure to free markets functioning properly.

 
This is not a free market -- free market fundamentalism only works in an actually free market. Monopolisim and collusion make the market unfree, and trying to apply free market logic to such a system is an exercise in failing to understand the real world -- one that is at total war with dissenting opinion.
Completely free markets always generate imbalance and monopolies.
 
Yet, I think in the long run that is the answer for something that aims to serve a large amount of people. I think the lawsuit they filed is a good thing, but if they don't win they may not survive.... so the lesson is to build something that they can't boot you out of w/o a change in the laws or even the Constitution. Don't let one's future lie in somebody else's hands is not a bad prescription.
As long as the plumbing stays neutral people can always find some way to hang a faucet off it. Things that concern me more are continuing to extend content immunity to companies that are clearly violating the good faith clause of section 230, such as Twitface and Flitter, and even more overarching issues with services such as payment services refusing to do business. Some banking regs are likely in order, and a tightening of the language in section 230.

Amazon and such, meh. That's a symptom not the cause.
 
Status

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top